The unwritten law of libel and slander is not invalidated by Art. 13 of the Constitution as it is saved by Cl. (2) of Art. 19 and the Constitution (First) Amendment Act, 1951, S. 3.

DHAVAN, J. : This is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the Second Additional Civil Judge of Meerut awarding the plaintiff respondent a sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages for slander. It raises several questions of law, including constitutional law, of general importance. The factual findings of the lower appellate Court were not challenged in this appeal and its decree was assailed on legal and constitutional grounds; but it is necessary to relate very briefly the facts which have led to this suit. An inquiry was instituted against one R.L. Bansal, Agent of the Allahabad Bank Ghaziabad, on the application of an employee of the Bank, Tara Chand. The defendant-appellant Purushottam Lal Siyal (hereinafter called Siyal), represented Tara Chand in that inquiry which was conducted by the Regional Officer of the Bank who was sent from Delhi. R.L. Bansal, as agent of the Ghaziabad branch, had made a report against Tara Chand complaining that his behaviour to the customers was unsatisfactory and this led to a proposal for the compulsory retirement of Tara Chand. The latter however sent a representation accusing R. 1, Bansal of personal prejudice against him, and the Bank ordered an inquiry. It was held in the premises of the Bank and both parties were permitted to lead evidence and produce witnesses. The appellant, who represented Tara Chand, was at the time holding a responsible position in the All-India Bank Employees Association. One of the witnesses of R.L. Bansal was Prem Shanker a local business man of some standing and repute. He is the plaintiff in the suit, and respondent in this appeal. He gave evidence in favour of R.L. Bansal and against Tara Chand. While cross-examining him, the appellant Siyal made statements which were regarded by the latter as defamatory and have resulted in this suit.

The plaintiff's case is that the appellant while cross-examining him made the following statement to the inquiry officer :

"In se yeh poochcha jaye ki inko kitna qarz dena hai; yeh kiya income-tax dete hain; yeh log gharibon ka khoon choos maldar ho gave hain; aise gawah das das vo bees rupya men behut mil sakte hain; in se yeh maloom kiya jaye ki inhon ne dedh dedh rupiya le kar kitni bar gawahi di; duniya bhar ka black market karte hain aur ab ek gharib bank kamachari ka khoon choosne aye hain." ("The witness should be asked how much debt he has incurred and whether he pays income-tax, he has amassed wealth by sucking the blood of the poor; witnesses like him are obtainable in abundance for Rs. 10 or Rs. 20; he should be asked how many times he appeared as a witness on being paid Rs. 1-8-0 he indulges in black marketing all over the world and now he has come here to suck the blood of a poor bank employee").

According to the plaintiff the appellant uttered these words in a fit of anger in the presence of several other persons, including some witnesses. He pleaded that these remarks were defamatory of him and had lowered him in the prestige of others and caused him considerable pain. He served a notice on the appellant claiming Rs. 3,000 as damages, but the appellant refused to accept it. Thereupon the plaintiff filed this suit claiming the same amount as damages.

2. The defendant resisted the suit and denied all liability. His defence was that he had never made the remarks attributed to him. Alternatively, he pleaded that the remarks were not defamatory and, in any case, the occasion was privileged. He also alleged that the suit was filed at the Instigation of R.L. Bansal who was on friendly terms with the plaintiff.

3. Both the parties led evidence. The inquiry officer, Shri Bishan Dass and several other persons appeared for the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and confirmed the allegations made by him in the plaint. Sri Bishan Das deposed that the appellant had made the disputed remarks attributed to him in his presence. The appellant also appeared in the witness box and denied having made the rema